XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 11/18/25 3:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   > On 11/17/2025 9:18 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> On 11/17/25 7:36 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   >>> On 11/17/2025 7:10 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/17/25 7:07 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-18, dart200  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/17/25 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 6:06 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 11/17/25 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> The halting problem is requiring deciders to   
   >>>>>>>>> compute information that is not contained in   
   >>>>>>>>> their input.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ur agreeing with turing and the halting problem:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> one cannot compute whether a machine halts or not from the string   
   >>>>>>>> describing the machine   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> That the halting problem limits computation   
   >>>>>>> is like this very extreme example:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Predict who the next president of the United States   
   >>>>>>> will be entirely on the basis of √2 (square root of 2).   
   >>>>>>> That cannot be derived from the input.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> bruh, ur agreeing with the halting problem:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> one cannot take the string describing the machine, and use it to   
   >>>>>> compute   
   >>>>>> whether the machine described halts   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But that isn't true; you certainly can do that. Just not using one   
   >>>>> unified algorithm that works for absolutely all such strings.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> When it /does/ work, it's certainly not based on any input other than   
   >>>>> the string.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> yes i meant generally   
   >>>>   
   >>>> you also can't compute generally whether you can or cannot compute   
   >>>> whether a an machine description halts or not   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Didn't you suggest you have a solution to the halting problem using   
   >>> reflection?   
   >>   
   >> yes, i was speaking to the consensus understanding in what you've quoted   
   >>   
   >   
   > Okay. Well, 100% per-path coverage is one way we can say that DD halts   
   > _and_ does not halt. I made the fuzzer for Olcotts DD for fun. Its NOT a   
   > solution to the halting problem. Actually, he raised some red flags in   
   > my mind when he tried to tell me that BASIC cannot handle recursion...   
      
   depends on which BASIC tho, eh?   
      
   > Programming BASIC brings back memories of when I was a little kid.   
   >   
   > Actually, you should be able to mock up your reflection system. Have you   
   > made any headway?   
      
   not at all   
      
   i'm working on the logical consistency of the theory, which is going to   
   be far simpler than actual implementation   
      
   i'm currently a bit stumped on dealing with a possible a halting paradox   
   constructed within RTMs, using an RTM simulating a TM simulating an RTM.   
   this chain similarly mechanically cuts off the required information to   
   avoid a paradox, kinda like a TM alone. not fully confident it's a   
   problem or not   
      
   i may write a post on it   
      
   --   
   a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve   
   basic semantic proofs like halting analysis   
      
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
      
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)